G.R. No. 100231 . April 28, 1993.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODRIGO DASIG @ KA RUBIN DAKU @ ARMAND; EDWIN NUÑEZ Y TABANAS @ MABI; ALVIN DOE @ AL @ KA ALVIN; ROGER DOE @ KA JAMES @ KA PEPE; TUDING ANDRINO @ KA ERMI @ KA ROEL @ KA GRINGO MONTAYRE; RUBEN DOE @ KA RUBEN @ KA JOJI @ INO ECHAVEZ; ANASTACIO BANGKAL @ KA JUNIOR; AND CARLITO MAGASIN @ BOBBY, accused, RODRIGO DASIG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rodrigo Dasig, together with Edwin Nuñez and others at large, was charged with Murder with Direct Assault for the killing of Police Officer Redempto Manatad on August 4, 1987, in Mandaue City. The prosecution evidence showed that Pfc. Manatad was shot and killed by a group of eight men while on traffic duty. Pfc. Rene Catamora, a back-up officer, witnessed the incident and identified Edwin Nuñez. On August 16, 1987, police teams captured Dasig and Nuñez in a safehouse. Dasig, while being treated in a hospital, gave an extra-judicial confession (Exhibit “J”) admitting his and Nuñez’s membership in the “sparrow unit” of the New People’s Army (NPA) and their participation in killing Pfc. Manatad. The confession was taken with the assistance of Atty. Fortunato Parawan, who was provided by the military as Dasig had no lawyer, and was subscribed before Asst. Fiscal Salvador Solima. At trial, Dasig repudiated his confession, claiming it was extracted through force and intimidation while he was sick, and that his counsel did not actively assist him. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder with Direct Assault.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the crime committed is Murder with Direct Assault or Rebellion, considering Dasig’s admission of being an NPA member and that the killing was in furtherance of rebellion. A subsidiary issue is the admissibility of his extra-judicial confession.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction. It upheld the admissibility of Dasig’s extra-judicial confession, finding it was voluntarily given with the assistance of counsel and after being informed of his constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the crime committed is simple rebellion, not Murder with Direct Assault. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion, even if crimes themselves like killing a person in authority, are absorbed into the single crime of rebellion. Citing People v. Mangallan, where an NPA member killed a suspected informer, the Court held the crime is rebellion under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is inapplicable to rebellion. As Dasig was a participant and not a leader, the penalty imposed was eight (8) years of prision mayor. He was also ordered to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the victim’s heirs.